The Supreme Court Must Be Stopped, by Elie Mystal

[admin]

The Supreme Court Must Be Stopped: The court is fundamentally antidemocratic—and the only way to limit the damage it can do is to reduce its power, budget, and lack of accountability.
by Elie Mystal
The Nation
March 1, 2024

When Republican politicians try to take away abortion rights, they often lose. They lose special elections and ballot initiatives and maybe even presidential elections as punishment for their Christofascist overreach. But when the Supreme Court takes away these rights, nothing happens [to members of the Supreme Court].

When elected officials take bribes or engage in corruption, they often lose; they get primaried or kicked off committees and sometimes face charges. But when Supreme Court justices engage in public corruption or take bribes, nothing happens [to members of the Supreme Court].

When Donald Trump commits crimes… he generally gets away with it; still, people do, at least, try to hold him accountable, and he sometimes gets charged or impeached or made to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. But when the Supreme Court helps Trump get away with his crimes, or at least helps him delay his reckoning until after the election—as it did earlier this week when it agreed to hear his claims for immunity from federal prosecution—nothing happens [to members of the Supreme Court].

The Supreme Court must be made to pay a price—a political, institutional, professional price—for its ongoing political thuggery lightly disguised as jurisprudence. Its members will never stop acting like the only nine Americans who matter until we stop them from doing that. And the only way to stop them is to limit their power, their budgets, and their unearned belief in their own supremacy.

These people—and I’m including both the conservatives and the liberals here—act like they’re untouchable because that is how everybody else treats them. The nine justices are the nepo-babies of American democracy: They’ve earned nothing, yet act like they own the entire world. Every other institution in this country treats the Supreme Court with unfailing respect and total acquiescence to its power. Why? What have these people done to deserve the authority to wield power without question or resistance?

The problem starts with us, “the people.” We don’t bow down to presidents or congresspeople in this country. We straight-up harass politicians. We fight City Hall. Some people refuse to submit to the authority of cops and will read them the riot act about individual rights and who pays their salaries (note to fellow Black folks: Do not try this at home)—even though the cops are authorized to shoot challengers to their power. Yet the Supreme Court justices can waft through this country, giving rights to some, taking away rights from others, and the people just shrug. The court operates like a monarch, bestowing flowers on their favored champions and thorns on their enemies. Yet we treat these boons and reproaches as just and final. Protests are minimal and short-lived. The justices are allowed to go about the rest of their lives, more or less normally. These people receive less public heat than Taylor Swift. If I walked into a Costco with Chief Justice John Roberts, more people would recognize me, and nobody would get in John’s face over what he’s done.

The problem is aided and abetted by the elected branches of government. The Supreme Court has no army, but all presidents (except the last one) are willing to enforce the court’s rulings, even when those rulings are unmoored from reason or logic or fundamental fairness.

The Supreme Court has no ability to raise money, but Congress provides these people with a number of things the Constitution does not require it to, including a fancy courthouse, government clerks and staffers, and official-looking robes so the justices can cosplay as religious clergy. The government even pays for the dry cleaning, lest the blood of the children the court thinks must be sacrificed in the name of the Second Amendment should stain their costume.

But the court’s greatest institutional accomplice is the media, which largely insists on covering the nine law shamans as they wish to be covered, instead of as the unelected, unaccountable poison that enfeebles the rest of American democracy. Just the other day, The Washington Post ran an entire column on whether it’s “fair” to point out which party appointed the judges and justices who rule us. The column was inspired by a judge—who wished to remain anonymous, because these people are rank cowards—who was annoyed at being referred to as a Reagan-appointed judge, and complained to one of their media friends.

The Supreme Court moans and complains about its press coverage all the time, with justices like Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett complaining with increasing intensity in recent years. It is insane to me that these people think they are entitled both to rule with supremacy and to receive favorable press, especially considering that the vast majority of the time the press does exactly what they want. The Supreme Court justices answer no questions they don’t want to be asked, sit for no interviews unless they are promoting a book, and do no public events other than ones where entire topics are predetermined as off-limits. The president can’t walk out onto his lawn without a gaggle of reporters waiting in the hedges to shout questions at him, and that’s despite having a dog that’s eager to chomp on a reporter’s ass if they get too close. But the press dutifully leaves the nine justices of the Supreme Court alone and allows them to speak only through their extremist, unhinged opinions and orders.

Consider this: Over the summer, the nine people who run an entire branch of government just disappear. They go on “vacation” and the press doesn’t follow them, doesn’t keep tabs on them, and doesn’t ask them to account for whatever fresh horror they have unleashed on the rest of us in June. Nobody even asks them whom they’re going to vote for in the fall, which is a question a much less important person like Mitt Romney gets asked 18 times before breakfast. It will take literally Pulitzer Prize–level reporting for us to find out who paid for the justices’ upcoming summer vacations, and we probably won’t know the answer until five years from now.

We treat the Supreme Court the way we do because people don’t understand how the court operates, and blithely assume there’s a valid reason for it. The people who do understand what the court is have made a political philosophy 101 decision: Tyranny is preferable to chaos. We bow and scrape to the Supreme Court because we fear that relieving it of its unearned power would lead our fractured country to open civil war. If the court does not get to decide which laws we live under, who does? Congress? What happens when Texas, or California, disagrees with Congress? What happens when Texas, or California, disagrees with the president? What happens when Congress or the president is just flat-out wrong? The threat of chaos always stalks democracy, and in our system we’ve allowed the Supreme Court to place itself as the final arbiter of our conflicts because we fear that the alternative is having our political conflicts be decided by strength of arms.

Count me in the camp of American feminist activist Jane Addams, who said, “The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.” The votes of nine people matter less to me than the votes of 330 million. If everybody were allowed to vote, if everybody’s votes counted equally, if the county weren’t gerrymandered into an antidemocratic pretzel, the people and not the court would be the final arbiter of our problems.

I came to this conclusion relatively late in life. You see, I am a liberal. Conservatives are more authoritarian-curious by nature, but I’ve found that liberals are the most eager to treat the antidemocratic Supreme Court as if it wears a laurel crown. That’s because liberals believe that some of our most cherished ideals about human rights and human dignity can be achieved only through a powerful high court with unquestionable authority. That’s the mistake I have been guilty of in the past. I have overemphasized Supreme Court rulings to, say, desegregate schools, while underestimating the importance of social movements, unyielding activism, and, frankly, the National Guard in forcing desegregation on a South that would never have just allowed Ruby Bridges to walk into a schoolhouse because of a ruling on a piece of paper.

All of this veneration of the Supreme Court must end if we are ever to rein in these justices. This court has proven with its actions—through one politically motivated decision after another—that it is unfit to wield the power that it does.

As many have written, the court’s decision to delay Donald Trump’s trial, functionally indefinitely, is indefensible and a clear indication of political posturing instead of the swift application of justice. But that decision is just the latest in a decade-long string of rulings meant to help Republicans achieve their long-standing political goals. From abortion to voting rights, affirmative action, labor laws, gun laws, environmental regulations, financial regulations, public bigotry disguised as religion—it has been years since you needed to know anything about the law to predict the Supreme Court’s rulings: All you’ve needed to know was the stated position of the Republican Party to be able to predict with perfect accuracy what the Supreme Court would do. Most, if not all, of these policy initiatives are ones Republicans cannot enact through elections and legislation, so the Supreme Court comes in and decrees by fiat all that the Republicans cannot accomplish through democracy.

We cannot and must not be satisfied with our pretend-democracy that can be thrown out whenever five justices get together on a fishing boat with Leonard Leo. The first step toward stopping the Supreme Court’s political actions is to treat the justices as political actors and subject them to all of the scrutiny, pressure, and protest normal political actors face every day. The Constitution says they can keep their jobs for life, but it doesn’t say they get to enjoy them. It doesn’t say they get to lord over us like unapproachable gods. It doesn’t say they get to hide on Harlan Crow’s yacht while all us little people suffer under their yoke. Supreme Court justices should be treated with at least as much disrespect as any football stadium can give to Ted Cruz. The justices can be subjected to at least as much political coverage as the freaking New Hampshire primary.

The second step is to cut their power. Regular readers know that I am an advocate for court expansion, adding justices to the court to overcome the current extremist Republican supermajority. Court expansion does reduce the power of any individual justice, but it fundamentally leaves the court’s power intact. It’s more of a reform for the way the court wields power, not an attempt to change how much power it has. But there are ways to take away the court’s power. Jurisdiction stripping—the idea that certain laws should be explicitly removed from Supreme Court review—is one official way to take power away from these people.

Unofficially, we should stop giving every Supreme Court thought bubble the force and effect of law by dutifully enforcing whatever the justices come up with. I know that sounds radical. But I also know that an unjust law deserves no respect. If you want a benign, “nonpartisan” way to distinguish between legitimate Supreme Court rulings and ones that should be ignored, I have one: Rulings must be affirmed by at least one justice from both parties, or we should ignore it. It’s that simple. Both sides or GTFO. If the Supreme Court cannot come to some basically bipartisan agreement, then the ruling of the lower court stands (and if the lower courts did not come to some bipartisan agreement, then the ruling of the single-judge district court stands). If that leads to some circuits having different interpretations of federal law than others, so be it. Conservatives should be cool with it—they allegedly love “states’ rights,” don’t they?

If the Supreme Court is going to continue to act like a super-legislature, then we should start treating it like one. And that leads to the final step: Recognize that the Supreme Court is the enemy of democracy, not its protector, and start covering its justices that way. This is true for all of the justices, even the “liberal” ones I like and generally agree with.

As we saw with the court’s pathetic excuse for an “ethics” code, all nine of them think they are special. All nine of them think they are above the normal rules of participatory democracy. All nine of them think they have more in common with each other than they do with me or you, and think of themselves as “friends,” regardless of what they do to the country. All nine of them will defend each other whenever they are called to public accountability for their actions.

I think of the Supreme Court the way Batman thinks of Superman: an extremely powerful being who is untethered from the laws of physics and therefore must always be considered a threat to free society. Batman never falls for Kal-El’s space-copaganda and always has a plan to protect himself and his city just in case Clark gets super mad one day.

We must regard the Supreme Court with that level of skepticism. These people are not our friends; they are not here to help, and at any moment they can take from us that which we should value most: our ability to democratically govern ourselves. The court has been taking that away from us, fairly consistently, for the past 24 years, ever since it anointed George W. Bush as president in 2000 despite the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and likely would have lost the electoral count had all the votes (both undervotes and overvotes) been recounted in Florida. We failed to punish the court for its overreach then, and that failure has only emboldened the court to become what it is today.

Put simply: The Supreme Court must be stopped. We must use what little power the court still allows us to have to vote for people with the strength and wisdom to stop them. We must demand that our political leaders share with us their plans for stopping the court, in just the same way we demand to hear their plans to fix infrastructure or lower taxes.

To get there, all of us need to recognize how dangerous the court is. We are ruled by this court because we are too disunified and distracted to resist it. That has to end, because these nine people will not stop devouring democracy until there is none left to eat.

[admin]

AOC’s Move on Thomas and Alito Has All the Right Historical Echoes: Ocasio-Cortez’s articles of impeachment against the rogue justices probably won’t remove them. But history suggests it might help tame the court in other ways.
by Thom Hartmann
July 12, 2024

Article 3 of the Constitution, which defines the roles and powers of the court system, says: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is taking the Framers at their word; this week, she introduced articles of impeachment against both Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the Republicans on this court have engaged in a decades-long steady torrent of corruption—from Chief Justice John Roberts’s wife making over $10 million hustling lawyers into law firms that practice before the court to Clarence Thomas’s million-dollar vacations and mother’s rent-free life, Samuel Alito’s paid speeches and luxury vacations with billionaires, Neil Gorsuch’s and Amy Coney Barrett’s fealty to the fossil fuel industry that his mother and her father served, and finally to Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged gambling debts—Congress has so far overlooked its obligation to, as Article 3, Section 2 says, “regulate” the Supreme Court.

AOC’s impeachment resolution calls out the two most egregious examples, Thomas and Alito, for failing to disclose gifts from billionaires with issues before the court. She also nails them both for refusing to recuse themselves from cases where they have obvious conflicts, like Thomas’s wife participating in January 6 and Alito’s flag-waving support of the effort to end our democracy.

Most recently, we’ve just discovered that billionaire-with-interests-before-the-court Harlan Crow even paid for the Thomases to take a luxury, all-expenses-paid trip to Putin’s hometown.

Any other federal judge in America would have been taken off the bench had he or she behaved the way these two have.

Right-wing media is laughing at Ocasio-Cortez, pointing out that since Republicans control both the House Judiciary Committee and the entire House itself, her impeachment resolution won’t even make it out of committee. They shouldn’t be so sure of themselves.

First, there’s a very real possibility—in part because of this court’s extremist rulings, particularly overturning Roe v. Wade—that the House will fall to Democratic hands next January and her effort could have a new, albeit uphill, life.

But second, and more important, it’s possible that her highlighting the corruption of at least two Republicans on the court may cause some of the others—particularly Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh—to become more moderate in their rulings going forward.

The last time the Supreme Court experienced such a crisis of confidence with the American people was in the 1935–1937 era, and the way it resolved is fascinating.

Back then, four of the justices—Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter—were collectively known as the Four Horsemen. They were invariably joined by one of the other justices—most frequently Owen Roberts—to strike down President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popular New Deal legislation that attempted to address unemployment and poverty.

The Four Horseman claimed to be originalists or “strict constructionists” who somehow could read the Founders’ intent from the Constitution, disregarding the historical reality that the Founders were not even remotely of a single mind.

For 40 years during the preceding Lochner era, the court had struck down dozens of state laws protecting workers, including women and children. During the period between 1897 and 1929, the court was ruling largely with the booming industrialist economy, and its conservative members saw the labor movement as disruptive rather than positive. However, with the onset of the Republican Great Depression, these industrialists lost popular support—but the Supreme Court had not caught up with popular opinion.

In 1935, the court ruled that both the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act were unconstitutional. The rulings gutted a large piece of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.

Shortly before Roosevelt was reelected in 1936, the court went even further and struck down a New York state law that established a minimum wage for women and children, in Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo. The pendulum of popular opinion swung against the court almost overnight.

In 1937, the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act were on their way to the court. Considering how the Four Horsemen had ruled during FDR’s first term, Roosevelt knew that he needed to do something or risk losing both pieces of legislation along with the collapse of his entire New Deal agenda.

With the New Deal on the line, Roosevelt—much like AOC today—went on the attack. On February 5, 1937, just months after his landslide reelection, he announced his plan: He asked Congress for the authority to appoint one new justice for each justice then on the bench over 70 years old.

In 1937, the average life expectancy for men in the United States was only 58 years. The average age of the Supreme Court justices at the time was 71 years old, and six of the justices were 70 or older. A book mocking the court, called The Nine Old Men, “was rapidly moving up the bestseller lists.”

FDR directly called into question the “capacity of the judges themselves” to dispose of the growing number of cases facing federal courts. He came up with a plan that would have immediately given him six appointments to the Supreme Court and up to 44 appointments for federal lower courts. Roosevelt argued that “a constant and systematic addition of younger blood will vitalize the courts.”

On March 9, 1937, Roosevelt told the nation that the court was ruling not just against himself and Congress but against the will of the American people, themselves. “The courts,” Roosevelt boomed, “have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions.” Roosevelt’s critics were aghast at his plans. They claimed he was trying the “pack the court” with justices who would simply be his yes-men.

Congress never voted on the plan. It’s unclear whether it would have succeeded, or if a more moderate plan that would have given him only two or three justices might have succeeded. Historians still debate the issue. But the point is that the need for it vanished virtually overnight. It ended with a decision on the minimum wage, a crucial component of the New Deal.

On March 29, 1937, a Washington state minimum-wage law came before the court in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. The law in question was nearly identical to a New York state law that that had come before the court a year earlier. But this time, Justice Roberts abandoned the Four Horsemen to uphold Washington state’s minimum-wage law in a 5–4 decision.

In a series of 5–4 decisions two weeks later, the court upheld the National Labor Relations Act as constitutional. The ruling was astonishing, and Roberts was the justice who’d swung the court to the left. Less than two months later, the court declared that Social Security was constitutional.

Roberts’s about-face in West Coast Hotel was referred to at the time as “the switch in time that saved nine” (the court’s reputation, that is). And it’s possible—although not definitively probable—that we could see a similar dynamic at play today.

As we saw with the two efforts to impeach former President Trump, any effort to remove a high official from office by that route is a long shot. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached—Samuel Chase in 1805—and he was notoriously corrupt (and often drunk).

But as FDR’s successful effort to take on the Republicans on the court showed, sometimes the very process of highlighting their unpopularity and inappropriate judgment can lead to a positive change. The country owes Representative Ocasio-Cortez a big thanks and an overwhelming reelection this fall.

Thom Hartmann @thom_hartmann
Thom Hartmann is the author of over 30 books. His writings appear daily at The Hartmann Report.

[admin]

Jack Smith quickly delivers REALITY CHECK to Judge Cannon
by Michael Popok
Legal AF Podcast
MeidasTouch
Jul 16, 2024

Superhero Judge Aileen Cannon: Superbitch

The Special Counsel—reminding Judge Cannon that he is actually EMPLOYED BY THE DOJ—just notified her that the Attorney General has authorized his IMMEDIATE APPEAL of her ruling dismissing the Mar a Lago case because it’s DEVIATES from all prior court decisions affirming the validity of the Special Counsel’s office and funding.



Transcript

Michael popok legal AF right on time and

in breaking news Jack Smith special

counsel yes he's the special counsel

properly appointed by the Department of

Justice and by Merrick Garland is

appealing this breathtaking decision by

judge aen Cannon to once and for all rid

herself of the moral Lago case that she

hasn't liked from the moment it was

assigned to her by finding that the

special Council was illegitimate invalid

improperly appointed improperly funded

taking the queue from a bunch of magga

right-wing think tanks who wrote briefs

that she accepted and made arguments in

her courtroom that she accepted even

though they're not parties to the case

and then the final nail in the coffin

for judge Canon is the love letter from

um judge Clarence Thomas in the July

first immunity decision that looked like

it was directed directly to her it might

as well have said dear judge Canon or

dear aen you should challenge the

special prosecutor special counsel

position and dismiss the entire

indictment based on its illegitimacy

Well Jack Smith is not taking it any

longer they've been waiting they've been

chomping at the bit at the special

council's office to get a substantive

ruling out of Judge Canon not one of

these little quarter page paperless

orders that we've reported about at

nauseum here on the mest touch network

but an actual living breathing good

oldfashioned 93 page decision that is

replete with improper analysis it's both

prolix her decision 93 pages and short

on analysis in proper legislative uh

research and and de citations I don't

know how you can be both 93 both heavy

and light at the same time it's just

chalk full of

makee without real substantive proper

analysis and she with the back of her

hand she dispatches and make short work

of the analysis based on the statutes

that actually authorize

pardon

me pardon me the special counsel so Jack

Smith as

expected waiting for this day for two

years to find the third major reversible

error Mistake by judge Cannon and argue

for her reassignment off the case to the

11 circuit has finally spoken

spokesperson for the special council's

office I'll read it read it to you Peter

Carr special counsel Jack Smith's office

quote the dismissal of the case Devi

from the uniform conclusion of all

previous courts to have considered the

issue that the Attorney General is

statutorily authorized to appoint a

special counsel the justice department

has authorized the special counsel to

appeal the Court's order think of those

words

alone just that last sentence is a is a

thumb in the eye back at judge Cannon

judge Cannon spent three pages three

whole pages in her decision starting on

page 24 telling the special counsel so

that he is invalid saying that he's not

an employee of the Department of Justice

that he doesn't have any Authority with

the Department of Justice he's not a

special attorney under the the

Department of Justice he's just a

stranger to the case and uh and in a

very succinct way almost like a high

coup from Jack Smith to aen Cannon he

said the following the justice

department has authorized a special

Council to appeal the Court's orders

because I take my orders because I'm an

employee am funded by the special

counsel that is an ex that is already a

exact response to her analysis this is

what the briefing said on page 24 the

alien Cannon said in her order that

neither of the statutes relied upon by

the Department of Justice of the special

counsel to justify his existence work

those two statutes approved by Congress

are 28 USC section 510 and 515 on 510

let me read you the language of 510 510

says the Attorney General May from time

to time make such Provisions as he

considers appropriate authorizing the

performance by any officer employee or

agency of the Department of Justice of

any function of the Attorney General

what what is the special counsel other

than an employee or agency of the doj uh

being given a function of the Attorney

General there's no doubt that main

Justice the Department of Justice could

have prosecuted Donald Trump but they

did a good thing not a bad thing under

Section 28 USC 510 but this is how

dismissive she is she analyzes that in

one paragraph out of 93 pages on page 24

and she says that no after she says

special Council Smith all as all agree

and as required by the special Council

regulations was selected from outside

the United States government what do

that have do anything he was selected

from outside the United States

government but once elected judge Canon

he became an officer employee or agent

of the doj to fulfill a function of the

Attorney General and then and then she's

so self-satisfied with her analysis that

she ends it after one paragraph in 93

Pages the most fundamental issue in the

case with saying no more discussion

about 510 is necessary because she

declares it so in an imperious way

showing uh false bravado and misplaced

bravado does the same thing about the

other statute authorized by Congress

that allows for the appointment of a

special counsel section

515 here she says and I'm going to read

you to

5:15 little B as we say each attorney

spe specially retained under authority

of the Department of Justice shall be

commissioned as special assistant to the

attorney general or special attorney and

shall take the oath required by law that

all happened here I know she doesn't

like to acknowledge it but the special

counsil was commissioned as a special

assistant to the attorney general or as

a special attorney she says well that

only refers to the US attorneys in each

district no that's not what it says it

rises and Falls based on the express

language the literal language of the

statute um and she then says under

515b as she goes through the analysis on

page 26 and 27 she concludes that he's

not a special attorney because he's

outside of the normal ranking hierarchy

of the Department of Justice I mean this

is utter and complete

nonsense and to remind her of who her

his boss is even though he is quote

unquote special he is not independent

let me repeat that Jack Smith is special

counsel not independent councel yes

there is supervision by Under the

Department of Justice guidelines there

is supervision by the Attorney General

of the actions of the special counsel

and he asks to run the case to give a

big of distance or a wall between main

Justice it doesn't mean he's not

employed it doesn't mean when he gets

his direct deposit every month from the

from somewhere it's not coming from

Meritt Garland's personal bank

account the payment to Jack Smith to pay

him his salary and those of everyone

around him I mean I mean um alien count

was all upset oh we spent $14 million I

mean a third of that is for security

details to protect the special counsel

from Death Threats created by Donald

Trump's rhetoric the rest is the

sprawling investigation in two places

Mara Lago and the Department of Justice

uh case against uh him in DC election

interference and she say oh he spent a

lot of money right and every time the J

brat or uh Jeff or or uh or Pierce or

any of the special counsels working

under Jack Smith get paid if they were

to look at their check their paycheck it

would say it's coming from the

Department of Justice the US Treasury

where does he think the money's coming

from

I mean that that's that's why he said

and the Department of Justice and the

attorney general has authorize me to

appeal your butt that's my own personal

observation on that what kind of night

is it is it a single double a triple I'm

not talking about alcohol I'm talking

about souls outof office micro do THC

gummies in three strengths plus no

hangover out of office gummies come in

1.5 milligram 3 mgram and 6 mgram Doses

and three delicious flavors we love them

for clearing your inbox winding down

after work or listening to your favorite

podcast like legal AF or heading out to

a party raise your gummies not your

glasses this podcast is sponsored by

Soul Soul's new outof office gummies are

perfectly micro doed with hemp derive

THC and CBD to give any day that

chilling on the beach Vibe did you know

you can now buy hemp derived THC product

in all 50 states so how can Soul send

you THC products no matter where in the

US you live because of the 2018 Farm

Bill hemp derived THC is now legal and

accessible Nationwide outof office

gummies gives you that warm fuzzy

euphoric micro do feeling without

sending it to the moon the soul team

suggests you start by eating half to one

gummy then wait 45 minutes to 1 hour to

start feeling the effects micro doses of

tea HC keep me feeling good without the

anxious thoughts and that's not all

Soul's got whether you're looking for a

sleep aid enhanced Focus or pain relief

Soul has all your Wellness needs covered

so give Soul a try head to get soul.com

and use code legal AF for 30% off your

order that's 30% off your order using

Code legal AF one last time getold.com

and code legal AF for 30% off here's

what's going to happen

now because alien Cannon's decision is

such an outlier such a rogue such a uh

uh so outside the mainstream s such

Fringe adoption of theories zombie

theories that have been floating around

the rightwing Maga conservative world

forever anything they could throw up

against the wall if they could just find

a judge to accept it they found a judge

in Alien Cannon but fortunately she's

got bosses at the 11 circuit we know

she's ignoring thank God for that we

know she's ignored her fellow senior

lawyers sorry judges in the southern

district of Florida there's already been

reporting that judge uh Cecilia altonaga

who I know well from when I practice in

Miami who's now the chief judge in the

southern district tried to counsel aen

Canada to step off the case and I think

judge Middlebrooks did the exact same

thing she refused now we know why

because who else was going to make this

decision that she just made to dismiss

an indictment finding that special

council's off is improper after 20 or 30

years of its operation under more than

one president including Donald Trump's

own attorney general Bill bar so

thankfully it's going to the 11 circuit

now the 11 circuit is filled of former

trial judges in Miami and I know some of

them well in Alabama and in Georgia

William prior a Georgia former judge is

the chief judge but there's other lawyer

Jud keep saying lawyers there's other

judges on the 11 circuit that sits in

Atlanta sometimes here's oral argument

in different places in Alabama or in uh

in uh in Florida um um these judges are

waiting I believe for her to have made

this major step and this isn't her

stepping in a bucket this is her

stepping into a crevice and disappearing

into Oblivion because they're going to

reverse her at the 11 circuit the

question is how quickly how quickly is

that briefing schedule going to be

arranged now I'm a member of the 11th

circuit and I'm a member of the southern

district of Florida and I've appeared in

front of many of the judges in the

southern district of Florida just not

alien Cannon although I have been in her

courthouse uh up in Fort Pierce and so I

think what's going to happen is they're

going to set a relatively quick briefing

schedule throughout the month of July

into August and they're going to make it

after oral argument they're going to

make a ruling in August and I think it's

going to be against aen Canon they're

going to order her to reopen the case

and they may even reassign it because

the 11 circuit has a lemon law three

strikes in you're out and she's made

three this will be her third major

reversible error decision as a young

immature inexperienced judge two to

start the case about the documents and

the search warrant and one now and if

they reassign her which they're allowed

to do under another

statute that she won't be able to

challenge or misinterpret they'll sign

it to another senior judge in the

southern district of Florida could be

judge Middlebrooks who already had the

Clinton Trump case could be judge

altonaga anyone anyone will do a better

job than judge aen Cannon and that's the

issue that the special counsel is now

going to prosecute and of course as I've

done another hot take this opens the

floodgates of attacks against the

special councel not just this special

councel prior special councils come one

come all if you were prosecuted and

convicted by a special counsel you've

got a new case that you can wave around

on your appeal and move to vacate your

judgment or your verdict against you

honor Biden doesn't matter that your

father and his and his lawyers run the

Department of Justice you can try to get

your recent gun conviction overturned

maybe and of course Donald Trump's gonna

file the same motion citing back to aen

Canon in front of Judge chuin I can't

wait for that Collision of intellects to

happen aen Cannon's decision Half Baked

as it is too smart by half as it is

going before judge judkin in the DC

election interference case I think she

make short work of that motion to

dismiss and then you've the DC court of

appeals probably affirming the same

thing will it eventually end up with the

United States Supreme Court yes when

will that be not this term term is over

sometime in the next term which means

sometime between uh election day and the

inauguration or after we'll follow it

all like we always do here on the

mightest touch network and on legal AF

follow me Michael popac on all things

social media Ms popok and I'm a

contributor and a playlist over on this

YouTube channel look under Michael popok

so till my next hot take till my next

legal AF this is Michael popo reporting